Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Edward Leroy SOLOMON, appellant, v. Ghandabi RAMLALL, respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated March 10, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.27(b).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The action was dismissed when the plaintiff's counsel failed to appear on the date set for jury selection (see 22 NYCRR § 202.27[b] ). To be relieved of the default in appearing, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Echevarria v. Waters, 8 A.D.3d 330, 777 N.Y.S.2d 724; Precision Envelope Co. v. Marcus & Co., 306 A.D.2d 263, 264, 760 N.Y.S.2d 334; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 197, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57). The plaintiff's excuse of law office failure was undetailed and uncorroborated and, thus, did not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Grezinsky v. Mount Hebron Cemetery, 305 A.D.2d 542, 759 N.Y.S.2d 386; Juarbe v. City of New York, 303 A.D.2d 462, 756 N.Y.S.2d 427; Eretz Funding v. Shalosh Assocs., 266 A.D.2d 184, 185, 697 N.Y.S.2d 335). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the meritorious nature of the action (see Tietz v. Blatt, 280 A.D.2d 469, 720 N.Y.S.2d 373; Roldan v. Potamousis, 159 A.D.2d 615, 552 N.Y.S.2d 669; Duqmaq v. Stewart, 137 A.D.2d 653, 524 N.Y.S.2d 745). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate the default.
An examination of the Supreme Court file in this action discloses that there is no written order concerning the dismissal of this action on December 16, 2003. We take this opportunity to again remind the bench that upon dismissing any matter for any reason, the court should enter a written order stating the basis for the dismissal (see Robinson v. Soutar, 12 A.D.3d 432, 783 N.Y.S.2d 825; Baez v. Mohamed, 10 A.D.3d 623, 781 N.Y.S.2d 612; Veramallay v. Paim, 5 A.D.3d 673, 774 N.Y.S.2d 730).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 02, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)